Monday, November 05, 2012

i estimate that absolutely noone gives a damn about the NHL, so by folding that thread into this one, we won’t distract from what this thread is really about: boner pills, blood doping (is it low t?), and…jesus christ did mike vick just throw another ####### interception?

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

In football it is really tough to establish "greatest" because the game changes so very much, but I feel comfortable in saying Rice is better than Moss (and I am pretty even nuetral on this as a 49er and Viking fan). Both are great great talents with insane production, but Moss took way too many plays off and generally was a headcase, while Rice worked his tail off and did not have nearly the nonsense, retirements, legal issues, trades and so on.

I'll take peak either on my team any day, but if I have to choose one it is Rice, and it is not a hard decision. Plus count the rings ;)

@3103 - I think the analysis is reasonable sound. EP, even inferred EP is a solid metric. He certainly could have done some more work and normalized for era - what you would have to do for Hutson.

I think the author blows off the fact that Rices' QBs were better - you could do some partitioning on this.
Something like:
For WRx: (EPqb - EPwrX) / ( avgEPqb - avgEPwr ) * EPwrX

That might actually get you era adjustment as well, since the aveEPs will be lower when it's harder to pass.

Some early 90s (alt.sports.football.sf-49ers) chatter on Hutson vs. Rice seemed to indicate that Hutson's best years were Rice-like if normalized but
a) his career was relatively short
b) he had huge years during WWII

I guess that doesn't really answer your timelining question. I mean, who knows. But on the other hand, maybe he was so good because CBs (or whatever they were called in 1940) never had to cover anyone. Did Hutson ever see a zone defense? Could he cover himself!

I dont hold with any of that "took plays off" "good teammate" blah de blah. Not that its not important in real life, but its not reported accurately.

Reported accurately or not, but as a MN resident I saw much of Mosses peak and he very much took plays off (much more than Rice, and during much of his peak I lived in the California Bay Area).

Of course I might be a biased towards Rice because my brother taught him to swim (as an adult, seriously in Rice's pool), but still I normally agree chemistry and such is overstated - except when you start talking "greatest ever" then I think it can at least be looked at.

One reason that I like baseball is that the numbers tell a story and through those numbers, it is possible for a person like me born in 1967 to have a good feel for Nap Lajoie, Lefty Grove, or Mel Ott. I don't have the same feel for football. Even though I was a fan and watched pretty intently, I have no idea how to compare Randy Moss with James Lofton, let alone players from before my time like Paul Warfield or Lance Alworth. If Dan Fouts was the one throwing to Lofton instead of Lynn Dickey, how good would he have appeared? While baseball has the deadball, segregation, war, drugs, etc. that have changed the tenor, it seems that football has been completely rebuilt time and again making cross generational comparisons so difficult. I raise a glass to those who try to normalize the stats, but the results don't leave me feeling too confident in the approach.

NEW ORLEANS -- Chris Culliver, a second-year cornerback for the 49ers, reportedly made disparaging comments about homosexuality in football during an interview with a radio-show host Tuesday at the Super Bowl's media day.

Culliver told Artie Lange that gay teammates would not be welcome in the locker room, according to quotes posted by Yahoo! Sports.

"I don't do the gay guys man," Culliver said. "I don't do that. No, we don't got no gay people on the team, they gotta get up out of here if they do.

"Can't be with that sweet stuff. Nah ... can't be ... in the locker room man. Nah."

Culliver suggested that homosexual athletes keep their sexuality private until 10 years after they retire.

NEW ORLEANS -- Chris Culliver, a second-year cornerback for the 49ers, reportedly made disparaging comments about homosexuality in football during an interview with a radio-show host Tuesday at the Super Bowl's media day.

Culliver told Artie Lange that gay teammates would not be welcome in the locker room, according to quotes posted by Yahoo! Sports.

"I don't do the gay guys man," Culliver said. "I don't do that. No, we don't got no gay people on the team, they gotta get up out of here if they do.

"Can't be with that sweet stuff. Nah ... can't be ... in the locker room man. Nah."

Culliver suggested that homosexual athletes keep their sexuality private until 10 years after they retire.

It's bad enough that he said this... but considering that he plays for San Francisco, it makes it even more vile. What a moron.

The 10-year moratorium on coming out is a new twist. I suppose that means you're eligible to wear the yellow blazer five seasons after retiring, but you can't comment on what an offense it is to fashion for another five.

i wonder how don hutson would match up in today's game? he was so far ahead of his time one thinks he at least would have a shot to be really good given training methods, etc of today

In 1996, Sports Illustrated's history of the NFL ranked pro football's greatest players across the years, and Hutson was at the top of the list. It shows the difference between football and baseball that a pretty high percentage of baseball fans would still consider Babe Ruth the gold standard, whereas I doubt if 1 in 10 non-Green Bay football fans would even recognize Hutson's name.

BTW Hutson's listed height / weight numbers are 6-1, 183, Jerry Rice's 6-2, 200, not that big a difference. Of course the real difference isn't between the two ends, but between the skill, speed and strength of their defenders.

Thinking of doing a checklist for the Super Bowl. Anybody interested in it?

I'd like to see some predictions vs. the current 3 1/2 point spread that favors the 49ers. I'd take the points, since I can see either team winning a very close game. The one thing I can't see is a blowout.

By the whole season's points differential and Sos (SRS), the Niners should be -7 or so. The FO number crunchers put it pretty close to a 60-40, which is roughly a -3. AdvancedFootballStats hasn't posted his % yet, but the Niners have a 0.1 EPA/P edge, and I think a 70% chance to win by his model, which is like a 6 point spread. AFS ignores special teams, which to the extent they are predictable, are a big Ravens' edge.

The line opened at -5.

BUT it's clear that Baltimore's OL and defense are playing much better. Not to mention the new OC.
Plus I think Baltimore is actually a bad matchup for SF (assuming their run defense is back near 2011 standards). The Niners losses this this have ALL been to teams that stopped the run.

SO if you believe special teams are 100% random (i..e, Akers has just missed a bunch of coin flips to the left) from game to game, then you should probably take the niners, as they should be favored by 5-6. If you do think the special teams differences will be manifest, then it's a very close call at -3.5, might want to go Ravens with the assumption they are finally healthy.

BUT it's clear that Baltimore's OL and defense are playing much better. Not to mention the new OC. Plus I think Baltimore is actually a bad matchup for SF (assuming their run defense is back near 2011 standards). The Niners losses this this have ALL been to teams that stopped the run.

These teams played in November of 2011 and the Ravens pulled away in the 4th quarter to win by 16 to 6. The Niners averaged just 2.6 yards per run in that game. This time they've got Kaepernick, but in that 2011 game Smith averaged 10.7 yards per completion on 15/24 and no interceptions. I think the line probably gives too much emphasis to Baltimore's mediocre regular season performance, but this is a different team altogether than it was in December----just ask Denver and the Patriots.

Rice is clearly better than Moss. A more interesting discussion: Randy Moss or Terrell Owens?

I thought about this very thing yesterday, but quickly went to ... so Rice is the best (Hutson is too far back for me to timeline at all, sorry), who is second? Moss, Owens, or who are the other contenders?

a green bay guy from a more recent era for whom i have tremendous admiration in how he played was james lofton.

lofton was an amazing receiver. whole package. fast. strong. great hands. i think his 1983 and 1984 seasons are among the greatest given that every defense knew green bay was going to try and get the ball to lofton and despite all the attention he still averaged over 20 yards a catch and rolled up over 1300 yards total each season.

i don't know where he sits in the pantheon but if you lined up a top 5 list he would be on it for me. easily

lofton's ability to defeat the hand checking/grabbing that was still in place in the late 70's and mid 80's was amazing. he would do this karate chop move on the d backs forearms that you could tell hurt like a bugger

If Hutson's too far back to timeline, then what about Hank Greenberg in baseball? His career (1933-41; 1945-47) began and ended within a year or two of Hutson's (1935-45). And if Hutson's too long ago, what year is your cutoff point for football? Did football only begin with Jim Brown or Walter Payton?

If Hutson's too far back to timeline, then what about Hank Greenberg in baseball? His career (1933-41; 1945-47) began and ended within a year or two of Hutson's (1935-45).

I don't think that's a valid comparison. The NFL of the 1930s was vastly different from today's NFL, a much bigger difference than that of baseball between the 1930s and now. Most significantly, Hutson played in the two-way era, which means he never had to face defensive backs chosen for their ability to defend the pass. It also means he was forced to play defensive end himself, and who knows how that affected his game.

Also, the NFL of that era was disreputable enough that it's hard to believe they got even half the best potential players. Hutson entered the NFL the year before the draft; in the first year of the draft, only 28 of the 81 players drafted even played in the NFL. The talent level in the NFL at that point was extremely low. They were literally pulling guys off the street. The NFL of the 1930s was more like MLB in the 1880s or even 1870s than it was like MLB of the 1930s.

So I don't think it's possible to do meaingful timelining from that point. We know Hutson was the greatest end of his time, and probably the greatest end of the first 50 years of the NFL. We can't know how he compares in any real way to Jerry Rice or Randy Moss. They played a totally different game.

Excellent points Tom. One think I think is overlooked is that Hutson's contemporaries came and went in a revolving door, particularly early in his career. I say that not to detract from his career but to enhance it. Of course playing during the war didn't help, but Hutson started well before then and that wasn't the only factor. It wasn't uncommon for players to play for a few years and then coach college teams. For example in 1935, Hutson's rookie year, Tod Goodwin lead the league in receptions, with 26 and was 2nd in TDs as well with 4. He was 24 years old. In 1936 he had 8 catches and 2 TD and he never played again. Gaynell Tinsley led the league in yards in 1937 at age 22 and receptions in 1938, was out of football in 1939, 1940 was his only other season. Don Looney led the league in yards and receptions as a rookie in 1941, he played only two more years. It was a different time.

Jerry Rice is the greatest in part due to career length, but relative to his era Hutson's was ridiculous. An eleven year career in today's game is pretty good, back then it was really something. There were 39 HOFers who played between the 20s and the 40s, and only 8 of them played double digit years.

@3128. The ravens had 9 sacks in that game. I am comfortable saying if they get 9 sacks again they win. The niners also have since replaced chilo rachel with boone, and as a unit the line is much,, much better.

The niners have played some pretty good DLs since then but no one schoolled them like that again.

If Hutson's too far back to timeline, then what about Hank Greenberg in baseball? His career (1933-41; 1945-47) began and ended within a year or two of Hutson's (1935-45). And if Hutson's too long ago, what year is your cutoff point for football? Did football only begin with Jim Brown or Walter Payton?

I see that the consensus between Tom and DA is that Hutson's environment was too radically different from the modern NFL to make any valid comparison. A fair point, with good reasons given for saying that, as long as they're not used simply to discount the possibility that Hutson might have been simply an all-time great who was just ahead of his time, much like Nap Lajoie or other early 20th century baseball greats who never made it into the modern era.

But granting the impossibility of making any meaningful comparisons between Hutson and Rice, or Baugh and Manning, at what point in NFL history do you think we can make timeline comparisons that aren't skewed by dramatically different conditions? How far back do we have to go before the relative lack of black players** becomes statistically significant? At what point do the height and weight differentials disqualify all but the biggest Old School NFL lineman?

Tom raises the good point about how Hutson's two way play might have affected the quality of his offensive game? What would Peyton Manning's passing stats look if he, like Sammy Baugh, had to play defense, and guard Anquan Boldin? At what point can we say with any degree of certainty that stars like Hutson or Baugh or Otto Graham or Jim Brown or Dick Butkus could have moved forward in time and excelled in today's game?

**Quiet as it's kept, the expansion of the talent pool in the NFL over the past 60 years may be even greater than it's been in baseball. Think of all the all-white southern and southwestern college teams, now overwhelmingly black, that didn't integrate until the 70's. Think of of all the northern and western teams that had de facto quotas for black players before that. Think of the exponential explosion in recruitment by all of these colleges, and the money that incentivizes it. The enormous quality difference between today's NFL and the NFL of Jim Brown's era may be largely explained by these simple changes.

@3128. The ravens had 9 sacks in that game. I am comfortable saying if they get 9 sacks again they win. The niners also have since replaced chilo rachel with boone, and as a unit the line is much,, much better.

The niners have played some pretty good DLs since then but no one schooled them like that again.

Not to that extent, but both the Giants (at Candlestick) and the Seahawks (in Seattle) beat the stuffing out of them in this year's regular season. The Niners are a very good team, but they're hardly invulnerable.

as long as they're not used simply to discount the possibility that Hutson might have been simply an all-time great who was just ahead of his time

Absolutely. Hutson just dominated the league in the second half of his career and in the first half was year in and year out the best at his position. That's greatness.

I don't know if we can ever truly answer your questions though. The game was just so much different. I agree with Tom that the 1920s and 30s of football was like the 1880s or so of baseball. It was played different, it was thought of different, it was treated different. I think anything prior to the AFL, which brought an immediate and significant expansion of talent and money, is murky at best.

>Not to that extent, but both the Giants (at Candlestick) and the Seahawks (in Seattle) beat the stuffing out of them in this year's regular season. The Niners are a very good team, but they're hardly invulnerable.

What part of "it should be a 3ish point spread game" indicates that I think the 49ers are invulnerable? Heck, gun to my head I probably take the points.

However, the Seahawks had only 1 sack of Kaepernick (2 for 2 yards against Smith), and in both games they gave up 313 yards to SF. The asskicking in that game was on the 49ers defense.

The Giants DL did dominate their game, at least pass rushing with 6 sacks. But even 6 != 9.

In both games the Niners managed to eek out 4 yards per carry on the ground. The common theme in both of those games and the tie with the Rams is that the Niners gave up huge yards on the ground. The second ram game was decided by a missed FG in OT by Akers which was set up by a horrible pitch play that went over Ted Ginns head and was scooped up for a score.

I should add that I picked wrong terrible ex-49 Guard. Adam Snyder was replaced by Alex Boone. Chilo was 2010.

AdvancedFootballStats hasn't posted his % yet, but the Niners have a 0.1 EPA/P edge, and I think a 70% chance to win by his model, which is like a 6 point spread. AFS ignores special teams, which to the extent they are predictable, are a big Ravens' edge.

I know no one cares but me, but I think I missed on John Henry-ing this prediction. It came out today at 60-40 Niners, within a point of FootballOutsiders.

Again, both % are "calculated" from the whole season + playoff stats together.

I don't know if we can ever truly answer your questions though. The game was just so much different. I agree with Tom that the 1920s and 30s of football was like the 1880s or so of baseball. It was played different, it was thought of different, it was treated different. I think anything prior to the AFL, which brought an immediate and significant expansion of talent and money, is murky at best.

Your point about the AFL is critical, since it was the AFL that right from the start went after the sort of black talent that the NFL for whatever reason didn't seem to pursue with the same degree of eagerness. But the real explosion in talent came sometime in the late 70's or early 80's, once all the colleges got rid of their racial quota systems and just began recruiting the best players who were out there.

I'm not sure I'd take the baseball comparison quite as far back as the 19th century, but I don't think that comparing the NFL of the 30's to the early 1900s in baseball would be too out of line. In both cases you had a handful of superstars and a few super teams dominating everyone else with impunity.

And although the early (pre-merger) days of pro football were primitive compared to today's game, that doesn't mean that the earlier version wasn't every bit as entertaining or colorful, just like early baseball. If anyone ever wants to read what is undoubtedly and unreservedly the best book on the first 50 years of the NFL (and AAFC and AFL), he should get a hold of Dan Daly's The National Forgotten League: Entertaining Stories and Observations from Pro Football's First Fifty Years. I promise never to do this again, but this book is so goddam good I'm going to quote my own review of it from Amazon:

I've been in love with the NFL since the years that the Detroit Lions ruled the world. In other words, for a very long time. And for sheer entertainment value, The National Forgotten League has got to be right up there on the short list of absolute must-reads about the game as it was before big TV money and saturation marketing took over.

You'll read about the often-sloshed crowds that would occasionally stagger onto the field during the Prohibition years. There are tales of how the Giants would schedule games against prison teams, a practice repeated by the Chicago Bears as late as 1950. We find out how the Hall of Fame QB Dutch Clark didn't show up for the 1932 championship game, because he felt obliged to honor his contract to coach his Colorado College basketball team, whose first practice session was two days before Clark's Portsmouth Spartans met the Chicago Bears for all the marbles---on an 80 yard field laid down in the same Chicago Stadium where Michael Jordan later led the Chicago Bulls to their first three NBA championships.

You'll learn about how the teams that played for NFL championships would often schedule exhibition rematches just weeks later, anything to grab a buck, and how first the Eagles and Steelers and then the Steelers and Cardinals combined their teams during World War II because of the drain of the military draft on NFL rosters. You'll discover the story of Bill Belichick's father Steve, who in a matter of months worked his way up from the Lions' equipment manager to being their leading punt returner. These stories are but the tip of the iceberg, taking the league from the Decatur Staleys and the Oorang Indians all the way up to the merger with the AFL. It's a book that no football fan should be without.

If Hutson's too far back to timeline, then what about Hank Greenberg in baseball? His career (1933-41; 1945-47) began and ended within a year or two of Hutson's (1935-45). And if Hutson's too long ago, what year is your cutoff point for football? Did football only begin with Jim Brown or Walter Payton?

Late (out of touch for a bit), but yeah the others covered it. I mean no disrespect to Hutson, I just have no idea how to compare him to Rice.

I dated a girl for a while and her grandmother later married a former Packer that played with Hutson. I dated this girl during Rice's SF hay days, and we'd talk to him about Hutson. He would simply describe him as men against boys, and he didn't mean that in the 'high school footage of Earl Campbell steamrolling kids off the field' sense, but that exactly that Hutson was one of the few true 'professional' football players in the league. Keep in mind, passing offense was extremely unusual during his era, and the Packers were pioneers in this regard. I think he still holds league records for # of seasons leading league in yards, catches, TDs, total scoring, and I'm pretty certain his 29 points in one quarter is still the record.

btw: Hutson played Safety on defense and actually was thought to be pretty good at it, leading the league in INTS at least once if I recall, he was also the kicker most of his seasons, again he was one of the only 'professionals' of his day.

Yeah the Packers were ahead of their era with their passing. Arnie Herber lead the league in passing yards before Hudson got there, in part because he also lead the league in attempts. But that was because he was an excellent passer for his time. That's why the Packers signed Hutson, they already had the best passer in the game, they wanted a receiver to pair with him. Needless to say he exceeded expectations.

Yeah, after Bama, skinny little Don Hutson wasn't thought to be much of a 'footballer' (was that term used?). Outside my native state, I highly doubt most football fans could even place him properly as a receiver for the Packers during the right era, let alone even ID him as the first great receiver in pro football.

Yeah, after Bama, skinny little Don Hutson wasn't thought to be much of a 'footballer' (was that term used?). Outside my native state, I highly doubt most football fans could even place him properly as a receiver for the Packers during the right era, let alone even ID him as the first great receiver in pro football.

The 1934 Alabama team of Hutson's was pretty sporty. Undefeated in 10 games, outscored their opponents by an average of 32 to 5, whupped a previously unbeaten Stanford team in the Rose Bowl, had an All-American tailback (Dixie Howell) and an All-American tackle (Bill Lee), plus Hutson and another end, a skinny little kid named Paul Bryant, later better known as "Bear". Their coach Frank Thomas called it the greatest team he ever had, and given his record, that was quite a compliment.

Move over, Gio Gonzalez. South Florida has a new sensational crisis to occupy its attention for the next 15 minutes.

Yes, Gio is a total scumbag now thanks to some scribbles on a paper, but even though Marino's wife knew make no mistake, Marino is a good man. This news changes some things. But not that. He is a good, responsible, civically conscious, locally conspicuous and, yep, obviously flawed man.

I think Tim Brown gets overlooked in these conversations. #5 all-time in receptions and yards, #7 in receiving TD's, despite not becoming a starting receiver until what looks like his fifth season. Prior to that, he was a return specialist and #3 guy. I'd probably take Moss, but Brown never gets mentioned.

[3150] I think I'm getting your angle. But personally, I'm pretty open to non-traditional relationships. Even ones that usually get heaps of scorn. At some point, there was no "good" choice left to Marino, but it still means that some are a lot better that others. And on the surface, it sounds like he's made the better of those choices.

How many other Super Bowl starting quarterbacks weren't their team's starter at the beginning of the season? Tom Brady, of course, and Jim Plunkett with the Raiders. Anyone else?

Jeff Hostetler (NYG) in 1991. Phil Simms got injured late in the season and Hostetler started the final two games and the playoffs.
Doug Williams (WAS) in 1988. Jay Schoeder was the starting QB, got injured in the first game, and then lost his position even when he was healthy later in the season.